Assessment of exhaled nitric oxide by a new hand-held device

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) has been implicated as a pulmonary biomarker. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a new hand-held device to a standard chemiluminescence analyzer and to another portable device. Methods: FENO levels measured by NObreath (Bedfont) were compared to those of (1) a chemiluminescence detector (Logan, Logan Research) and (2) the electrochemical portable NIOX MINO (Aerocrine) in 18 healthy volunteers on three consecutive occasions: in the morning, 1 h and 24 h later. Results: Comparing FENO levels obtained by NObreath to those by Logan values were similar and a very close linear relationship was found between the two devices (r = 0.923, p <0.001). The mean inter-device difference in FENO level was -3.45 ppb and the limits of agreement (Bland-Altman test) were -10.98 and 4.08 ppb. In the second series FENO levels obtained by NObreath were found to be slightly higher compared to those of NIOX MINO, but still showed a close correlation (r = 0.681, p <0.001). The mean inter-device difference in FENO level was 4.36 ppb and the limits of agreement were -7.38 and 16.1 ppb. Analyzing the repeated FENO measurements, the mean coefficient of variation using NObreath tended to be lower than that of NIOX MINO (16.9 vs. 24.7%, p = 0.059), while it was similar as the value obtained with Logan (11.8 vs. 9.0%, p = 0.342). Conclusions: FENO values measured with NObreath are reproducible and in good agreement with those obtained by NIOX MINO and Logan indicating that NObreath is suitable for use in clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1377-1380
Number of pages4
JournalRespiratory Medicine
Volume104
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2010

Fingerprint

Nitric Oxide
Hand
Equipment and Supplies
Luminescence
Healthy Volunteers
Biomarkers
Lung
Research

Keywords

  • Exhaled nitric oxide
  • Logan
  • NIOX MINO
  • NObreath
  • Reproducibility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Assessment of exhaled nitric oxide by a new hand-held device. / Antus, B.; Horváth, I.; Barta, I.

In: Respiratory Medicine, Vol. 104, No. 9, 09.2010, p. 1377-1380.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{19ba1a6e082a4a44b5c861cebd505694,
title = "Assessment of exhaled nitric oxide by a new hand-held device",
abstract = "Background: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) has been implicated as a pulmonary biomarker. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a new hand-held device to a standard chemiluminescence analyzer and to another portable device. Methods: FENO levels measured by NObreath (Bedfont) were compared to those of (1) a chemiluminescence detector (Logan, Logan Research) and (2) the electrochemical portable NIOX MINO (Aerocrine) in 18 healthy volunteers on three consecutive occasions: in the morning, 1 h and 24 h later. Results: Comparing FENO levels obtained by NObreath to those by Logan values were similar and a very close linear relationship was found between the two devices (r = 0.923, p <0.001). The mean inter-device difference in FENO level was -3.45 ppb and the limits of agreement (Bland-Altman test) were -10.98 and 4.08 ppb. In the second series FENO levels obtained by NObreath were found to be slightly higher compared to those of NIOX MINO, but still showed a close correlation (r = 0.681, p <0.001). The mean inter-device difference in FENO level was 4.36 ppb and the limits of agreement were -7.38 and 16.1 ppb. Analyzing the repeated FENO measurements, the mean coefficient of variation using NObreath tended to be lower than that of NIOX MINO (16.9 vs. 24.7{\%}, p = 0.059), while it was similar as the value obtained with Logan (11.8 vs. 9.0{\%}, p = 0.342). Conclusions: FENO values measured with NObreath are reproducible and in good agreement with those obtained by NIOX MINO and Logan indicating that NObreath is suitable for use in clinical practice.",
keywords = "Exhaled nitric oxide, Logan, NIOX MINO, NObreath, Reproducibility",
author = "B. Antus and I. Horv{\'a}th and I. Barta",
year = "2010",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.rmed.2010.06.005",
language = "English",
volume = "104",
pages = "1377--1380",
journal = "Respiratory Medicine",
issn = "0954-6111",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of exhaled nitric oxide by a new hand-held device

AU - Antus, B.

AU - Horváth, I.

AU - Barta, I.

PY - 2010/9

Y1 - 2010/9

N2 - Background: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) has been implicated as a pulmonary biomarker. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a new hand-held device to a standard chemiluminescence analyzer and to another portable device. Methods: FENO levels measured by NObreath (Bedfont) were compared to those of (1) a chemiluminescence detector (Logan, Logan Research) and (2) the electrochemical portable NIOX MINO (Aerocrine) in 18 healthy volunteers on three consecutive occasions: in the morning, 1 h and 24 h later. Results: Comparing FENO levels obtained by NObreath to those by Logan values were similar and a very close linear relationship was found between the two devices (r = 0.923, p <0.001). The mean inter-device difference in FENO level was -3.45 ppb and the limits of agreement (Bland-Altman test) were -10.98 and 4.08 ppb. In the second series FENO levels obtained by NObreath were found to be slightly higher compared to those of NIOX MINO, but still showed a close correlation (r = 0.681, p <0.001). The mean inter-device difference in FENO level was 4.36 ppb and the limits of agreement were -7.38 and 16.1 ppb. Analyzing the repeated FENO measurements, the mean coefficient of variation using NObreath tended to be lower than that of NIOX MINO (16.9 vs. 24.7%, p = 0.059), while it was similar as the value obtained with Logan (11.8 vs. 9.0%, p = 0.342). Conclusions: FENO values measured with NObreath are reproducible and in good agreement with those obtained by NIOX MINO and Logan indicating that NObreath is suitable for use in clinical practice.

AB - Background: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) has been implicated as a pulmonary biomarker. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a new hand-held device to a standard chemiluminescence analyzer and to another portable device. Methods: FENO levels measured by NObreath (Bedfont) were compared to those of (1) a chemiluminescence detector (Logan, Logan Research) and (2) the electrochemical portable NIOX MINO (Aerocrine) in 18 healthy volunteers on three consecutive occasions: in the morning, 1 h and 24 h later. Results: Comparing FENO levels obtained by NObreath to those by Logan values were similar and a very close linear relationship was found between the two devices (r = 0.923, p <0.001). The mean inter-device difference in FENO level was -3.45 ppb and the limits of agreement (Bland-Altman test) were -10.98 and 4.08 ppb. In the second series FENO levels obtained by NObreath were found to be slightly higher compared to those of NIOX MINO, but still showed a close correlation (r = 0.681, p <0.001). The mean inter-device difference in FENO level was 4.36 ppb and the limits of agreement were -7.38 and 16.1 ppb. Analyzing the repeated FENO measurements, the mean coefficient of variation using NObreath tended to be lower than that of NIOX MINO (16.9 vs. 24.7%, p = 0.059), while it was similar as the value obtained with Logan (11.8 vs. 9.0%, p = 0.342). Conclusions: FENO values measured with NObreath are reproducible and in good agreement with those obtained by NIOX MINO and Logan indicating that NObreath is suitable for use in clinical practice.

KW - Exhaled nitric oxide

KW - Logan

KW - NIOX MINO

KW - NObreath

KW - Reproducibility

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955657772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955657772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.rmed.2010.06.005

DO - 10.1016/j.rmed.2010.06.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 20594818

AN - SCOPUS:77955657772

VL - 104

SP - 1377

EP - 1380

JO - Respiratory Medicine

JF - Respiratory Medicine

SN - 0954-6111

IS - 9

ER -